Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lucerogreen2 sentences2026See Hogsett, ¶¶ 48-50 (modernizing the common law marriage factors identified in Lucero, 747 P.2d at 664 ). 2019However, we consider it as relevant to the common law marriage inquiry. 4 unreasonable, or unfair,’ or where it is based on an erroneous view of the law.” People v. Elmarr, 2015 CO 53, ¶ 20 (citations omitted). ¶9 In Lucero, the supreme court held that “[a] common law marriage is established by the mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship.” 747 P.2d at 663 . | 3 | 6 |
In re the Marriage of Dean LAFLEUR v. Timothy PYFERgreen2 sentences2024See LaFleur , ¶ 50, 479 P.3d at 883 ; Estate of Yudkin , ¶ 16, 478 P.3d at 736 . ¶ 23 As with the transcripts relevant to the recusal issue , Bishop failed to include the transcript of the court’s common law marriage hearing and ruling or provide a statement of the evidence, even though she had a duty to do so. 2024See LaFleur , ¶ 50, 479 P.3d at 883 ; Estate of Yudkin , ¶ 16, 478 P.3d at 736 . ¶ 23 As with the transcripts relevant to the recusal issue , Bishop failed to include the transcript of the court’s common law marriage hearing and ruling or provide a statement of the evidence, even though she had a duty to do so. | 2 | 3 |
Till v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2024See Till , 1 96 Colo. at 127, 581 P.2d at 299 ; C.A.R. 10(d)(3) . 2024See Till , 1 96 Colo. at 127, 581 P.2d at 299 ; C.A.R. 10(d)(3) . | 2 | 2 |
PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Administrationgreen2 sentences2021CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT , concurring in the judgment only . ¶78 " [T] he cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more." PDK Lab'ys Inc. v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin. , 362 F.3d 786, 799 ( D.C. 2021Requiring those who 4 wish to be married in Colorado to obtain a marriage license would remedy these issues and provide a bright-line rule for courts to rely on. ¶77 For these reasons, I urge the legislature to abolish the common law marriage doctrine. 5 CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, concurring in the judgment only. ¶78 “[T]he cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” PDK Lab’ys Inc. v. U.S. Drug Enf’t Admin., 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
In re Marriage of Zandergreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re Marriage of Pawelec, 2024 COA 107, ¶¶ 34, 36 (three-hour time limit for parenting time hearing was not an abuse of discretion when mother’s counsel did not object and mother failed to identify any evidence excluded based on the time limit); see also In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (an appellate court may decline to consider an argument not supported by legal authority or any meaningful legal analysis), aff’d, 2021 CO 12 . 5 IV. | 1 | 1 |
Norton v. Ruebelgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re Marriage of Pawelec, 2024 COA 107, ¶¶ 34, 36 (three-hour time limit for parenting time hearing was not an abuse of discretion when mother’s counsel did not object and mother failed to identify any evidence excluded based on the time limit); see also In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (an appellate court may decline to consider an argument not supported by legal authority or any meaningful legal analysis), aff’d, 2021 CO 12 . 5 IV. | 1 | 1 |
09 In re the Marriage of Zandergreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re Marriage of Pawelec, 2024 COA 107, ¶¶ 34, 36 (three-hour time limit for parenting time hearing was not an abuse of discretion when mother’s counsel did not object and mother failed to identify any evidence excluded based on the time limit); see also In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (an appellate court may decline to consider an argument not supported by legal authority or any meaningful legal analysis), aff’d, 2021 CO 12 . 5 IV. | 1 | 1 |
In Re People v. Elmarrgreen1 sentence2019However, we consider it as relevant to the common law marriage inquiry. 4 unreasonable, or unfair,’ or where it is based on an erroneous view of the law.” People v. Elmarr, 2015 CO 53, ¶ 20 (citations omitted). ¶9 In Lucero, the supreme court held that “[a] common law marriage is established by the mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship.” 747 P.2d at 663 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde
green
2 sentences2021But even assuming Obergefell ’s retroactivity, it doesn't obviate the Sisyphean challenge presented by the common law marriage requirement of mutual intent and agreement to enter into the legal relationship of marriage.3 Obergefell may have changed our state law retroactively, but it lacks the power to change anyone's intent or any couple's agreement retroactively. ¶93 Significantly, the Supreme Court wisely predicted a quarter of a century ago that even when courts apply retroactively a new rule of law to a pending case, " they will find instances where that new rule, for well-established leg 2021But even assuming Obergefell’s retroactivity, it 8 doesn’t obviate the Sisyphean challenge presented by the common law marriage requirement of mutual intent and agreement to enter into the legal relationship of marriage.3 Obergefell may have changed our state law retroactively, but it lacks the power to change anyone’s intent or any couple’s agreement retroactively. ¶93 Significantly, the Supreme Court wisely predicted a quarter of a century ago that even when courts apply retroactively a new rule of law to a pending case, “they will find instances where that new rule, for well-established leg | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer
green
2 sentences2021JUSTICE HART , specially concurring . ¶71 I fully join the majority opinion in this case , as well as in In re Estate of Yudkin , 2021 CO 2 , 478 P.3d 732 , and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer , 2021 CO 3 , 479 P.3d 869 , because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered. 2021JUSTICE SAMOUR concurs in the judgment only. 40 JUSTICE HART, specially concurring. ¶71 I fully join the majority opinion in this case, as well as in In re Estate of Yudkin, 2021 CO 2 , __ P.3d __, and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, 2021 CO 3 , __ P.3d __, because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re Estate of Yudkin
green
2 sentences2021JUSTICE HART , specially concurring . ¶71 I fully join the majority opinion in this case , as well as in In re Estate of Yudkin , 2021 CO 2 , 478 P.3d 732 , and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer , 2021 CO 3 , 479 P.3d 869 , because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered. 2021JUSTICE SAMOUR concurs in the judgment only. 40 JUSTICE HART, specially concurring. ¶71 I fully join the majority opinion in this case, as well as in In re Estate of Yudkin, 2021 CO 2 , __ P.3d __, and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, 2021 CO 3 , __ P.3d __, because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale
green
1 sentence2026Neither party has ever contended that they entered into a licensed marriage under the Uniform Marriage Act, see §§ 14-2-101 to -113, C.R.S. 2025, and none of the analysis in this opinion has any bearing on how a court should determine the validity of a licensed marriage, see Hogsett v. Neale, 2021 CO 1 , ¶ 31 & n.5 (recognizing that the common law marriage doctrine holds common law marriages “to standards that some licensed marriages might not meet if similarly scrutinized”). 2 marriage “is valid for all purposes, the same as a ceremonial or civil marriage, and can only be terminated by death | 1 | 2026–2026 |
IN RE the ESTATE OF Viacheslav YUDKIN, Svetlana Shtutman v. Tatsiana Dareuskaya
green
1 sentence2021JUSTICE HART , specially concurring . ¶71 I fully join the majority opinion in this case , as well as in In re Estate of Yudkin , 2021 CO 2 , 478 P.3d 732 , and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer , 2021 CO 3 , 479 P.3d 869 , because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Obergefell v. Hodges
green
1 sentence2021Id. at ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.